The gear legacy: did gear fail or move South Africa forward in development?
This article describes the economic and development policy legacy of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (Gear) programme. It considers the arguments for and against Gear, and attempts to answer the question whether or not the programme has moved us forward in development. The economic legacy is described as dismal development outcomes but excellent macroeconomic policy outcomes. The policy legacy is described as continuing with Gear in some respects, but also incorporating a shift in development strategy that takes into account critique of Gear from the left and proposes a more active and direct role for the state in employment creation. This shift is seen as positive because the key challenge in the post-Gear period is how to use the state more effectively to create jobs and provide income for the poor. The overview of the arguments for and against Gear finds most of the former to be thin. Moreover, it highlights conceptual flaws in the strategy that explain why it failed to produce the promised employment creation and poverty reduction by the end of the programming period (1996-2000). However, there is no clear answer to the question of whether or not Gear has failed - would an alternative policy have produced better outcomes in the period? Also, Gear has improved the private investment climate and produced better resource and institutional conditions for government to play a more active role in pushing future development. Whichever way it is argued, a key point that emerges is that development prospects will remain gloomy if the government reverts back to the strategy of relying largely on the private sector to reduce poverty, and fails to do more itself via effective income support programmes for the poor.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 21 (2004)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CDSA20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CDSA20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:deveza:v:21:y:2004:i:2:p:271-288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.